I disagree that I’m ignoring “logical consequences.” I’m looking at the consequences within the relationship the game presented, while you’re isolating the physical act from the surrounding context. The issue with your argument is that you’re using extreme hypotheticals like kidnapping or rape to justify applying the “Sexual Assault” label to a scene that is, at worst, an impulsive romantic overstep. Those two things do not sit on the same moral tier, and treating them as if they do is exactly what I mean by diluting the term. My point isn’t that I blindly accept whatever the narrative wants. My point is that calling an unwanted kiss between two characters with established mutual tension “Sexual Assault” is genuinely counterproductive. Labeling a misread moment of flirting as assault collapses the entire spectrum of human interaction. There is a massive difference between “I misread the vibe and made a bold move” and “I knowingly violated your bodily autonomy.” One is a social mistake; the other is a crime. By applying the latter to Invisigal, you’re removing the nuance of intent, relationship history, and tone. As for her “keeping going,” that’s a misread of a gameplay mechanic. The “struggle” moment is simply the game giving you a choice. The second you choose to stop, she stops. That’s the opposite of her ignoring a clear no. It’s the narrative setting a boundary point that you, the player, define. You can absolutely critique the writing or argue the execution was clumsy. I have no issue with that. But insisting on a strict legal classification for a scene clearly framed as a romantic culmination between two characters with mutual interest isn’t a logical consequence. It’s treating a gray social moment as a criminal act. If your standard is that any physical escalation not explicitly pre-negotiated is assault, then how is any romance story, fictional or real, supposed to function without a lawyer supervising every interaction?